Malto v.

People
Petitioner: Michael John Z. Malto
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Topic: Child Prostitution RA 7610
Facts:
Private complainant AAA was 17 years old, a college student at the
Assumption College in San Lorenzo Village, Makati City.
Petitioner was her professor in her Philosophy II class.
Petitioner started to show AAA amorous attention. Soon, they had a mutual
understanding and became sweethearts.
Once, when AAA agreed to have lunch with petitioner, since she was not
feeling well, he asked her to lie down in the backseat of his car. She was
surprised when he brought her to Queensland Lodge in Pasay City.
Once inside the motel room, he kissed her at the back and neck, touched her
breasts and placed hands inside her blouse. She resisted his advances but he
was too strong for her. He stopped only when she got angry at him.
Petitioner brought AAA again to Queensland Lodge. She refused but he
dragged her towards the bed, kissed her lips, neck and breasts and
unsnapped her brassiere. She struggled to stop him but he overpowered her.
He went on top of her, lowered her pants and touched her private part. He
tried to penetrate her but she pushed him away forcefully and she sat up in
bed.
She refused at first. However, petitioner threatened her to end their
relationship if she would not give in. They had sexual intercourse.
AAA soon ended her relationship with petitioner. She learned that he was
either intimately involved with or was sexually harassing his students in
Assumption College and in other colleges where he taught. His employment
at Assumption College was also terminated for sexually harassing two of his
students.
AAA confided to her mother, BBB, who filed an administrative complaint in
Assumption against him as well as a criminal complaint in the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Pasay City.
Petitioner proffered denial and alibi.
TC ruled in favor of AAA. CA affirmed but found his acts were covered by
par(b) of Sec 5, Art III, RA 7610.
Issues:
1. Appropriate paragraph of the violation of the offense
Sec 5(b), Art III, RA 7610 (not paragraph a)

Paragraph (a) punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child

prostitution. It contemplates sexual abuse of a child exploited in prostitution.
In other words, under paragraph (a), the child is abused primarily for profit.
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only
with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other
sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit

but also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence,

engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
The information against petitioner did not allege anything pertaining to or
connected with child prostitution. It did not aver that AAA was abused for
profit. What it charged was that petitioner had carnal knowledge or
committed sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct with AAA; AAA was
induced and/or seduced by petitioner who was her professor to indulge in
sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct and AAA was a 17-year old minor.

2. WoN petitioner violated Sec 5(b), Art III, RA 7610

YES
Elements:
1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
o Petitioners acts (kissing, touching, sexual intercourse, exerted moral
influence, etc.) were covered by the definitions of sexual abuse and
lascivious conduct under Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and
Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases
promulgated to implement the provisions of RA 7610, particularly on
child abuse.
2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse
o Due to the influence of petitioner, AAA indulged in lascivious acts with
or allowed him to commit lascivious acts on her. This was repeated
when AAA indulged in sexual intercourse with petitioner as a result of
the latters influence and moral ascendancy.
3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age
o AAA was below 18 years old when the acts were committed.
3. WoN the sweetheart theory be invoked in cases of child prostitution and
other sexual abuse in RA 7610 (mutual love and affection, consent)
NO
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse
cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly
give consent to sexual intercourse with another person.
Consent is immaterial involving violation of Sec 5, Art III. It is a malum
prohibitum.